Striking Manager with Golf Cart Constitutes Assault, not Horseplay: Va. Court

Case File

A worker struck a manager with a golf cart and had to enter a nolo contendere plea in criminal court for the incident, but was it just horseplay? Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Camping World RV Sales, LLC v. Ocasio, No. 0439-24-4 (Va. Ct. App. 05/27/25, unpublished)

What Happened

An operations manager for an RV seller was helping a customer while a coworker accelerated toward him in a golf cart. When the manager extended his arms and shouted, "Hey, hey, what are you doing?" the coworker aimed the cart at the manager, striking him as he attempted to get out of the way.

According to the customer, the manager stumbled but did not fall.

In a hand-written statement after the incident, the coworker wrote that he was taking trash from around the grounds and "as a joke ... thought it would be funny" to tap the manager with cardboard he was holding. However, he reported that he had "gotten too much speed" and hit the brakes too late.

The coworker later testified that "everybody was pranking all the time" and always did "little practical jokes."

The manager filed a workers' compensation claim.

In considering the manager's claim, a deputy commissioner held that evidence supported a finding that the accident was the result of an assault, not horseplay. As result, the deputy commissioner found that the manager's injuries did not arise out of his employment and denied the worker's compensation claim.

The manager sought review by the full Commission, which reversed. The Commission noted that the "defining characteristic of horseplay is one of intent and that the conduct, however dangerous, was done in jest."

Thus, the Commission reversed the denial of benefits.

The RV seller appealed to court.

Rule of Law

Virginia applies the "actual risk" test to decide whether an injury arises out of employment. Under this test, an injury must have a causal connection between the employee's injury and the conditions under which the employer requires the work to be done.

Workers' Comp. 101: Concerning the actual risk test, the Virginia Supreme Court said in Simms v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 281 Va. 114 (2011), if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises "out of" the employment. But the test excludes an injury that cannot be fairly traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and that comes from a hazard to which the worker would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood. It must be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee. It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as rational consequence.

When horseplay among coworkers causes injury, that injury is automatically compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. In contrast, when a worker is injured from an assault and battery, there must be a nexus between the tort and the employment to fall within the act.

What the Court Said

In determining whether the conduct was horseplay -- and thus covered under workers' compensation law -- or an assault -- and thus not covered -- the court had to consider caselaw on point as follows:

Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 176 (2008). Martin was known to be childish and immature. While working as a medical technician on an ambulance, Martin turned on a manual cardiac defibrillator, picked up the defibrillator paddles, turned toward the front of the ambulance, and told his coworker, “I’m going to get you.” The coworker screamed, “Get those away from me,” and pushed Martin back. Although he “appeared to be replacing the paddles in the unit,” Martin suddenly turned around and “again came toward her, striking [the coworker] with the paddles” and “simultaneously activating them.” The coworker screamed, went into seizure, and died three days later. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court held that it was "immaterial whether the assailant’s subjective motivation is playful, amorous, vindictive, or hostile.” Indeed, “[w]hether intended as flirtatious, merely playful, or as harassment,” Martin’s actions were an “assault.”

Richmond Newspapers v. Hazelwood, 249 Va. 369 (1995). Hazelwood was a pressman in the Richmond Newspapers pressroom. On five occasions, his supervisor “goosed” him, meaning he grabbed Hazelwood between his buttocks or genital area “with an upward thrust of a finger or hand from the rear.” On one occasion, the supervisor penetrated Hazelwood’s body, which triggered depression and PTSD in Hazelwood stemming from a childhood sexual assault. Hazelwood sued, asserting tort claims that included assault and battery. Richmond Newspapers tried to show that “goosing” was an actual risk of employment because it was prevalent in the newsroom for many years and workers only goosed those they considered friends. In effect, Richmond Newspapers argued that goosing was pressroom horseplay, making it an actual risk of employment exclusively covered by the Act. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument and found instead that it was an assault.

Simms v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 281 Va. 114 (2011). Simms was a restaurant server. While walking into the kitchen to enter an order, three of his coworkers started throwing ice at him. When he tried to shield his face from the ice with his arm, his shoulder dislocated. Simms testified that he knew the employees who were throwing ice, that he had contact with them outside of work, and that he considered them friends. The lower court found that the horseplay doctrine did not apply following Hilton and thus concluded that Simms “did not sustain an injury that arises out of employment” because “the commission could reasonably find that ice-throwing was not a risk of employment” and “the incident was personal . . . [to Simms].” Simms v. Ruby Tuesdays, Inc., 54 Va. App. 388, 394, 396 (2009), rev’d, 281 Va. 114 (2011). The Supreme Court reversed, explaining that, “[i]n deciding Hilton, it was not our intention to scuttle the horseplay doctrine, or to impose any additional burden of proof upon claimants found to be the innocent victims of workplace horseplay.” Rather, the actual risk analysis in Hilton—where an injured employee must show a causal connection to their employment to be compensable—applies solely to assault and battery cases, not those involving innocent victims of horseplay.

In examining these cases, the court explained that a central focus must be on the nature of the conduct, not just the subjective motivation. Applying that focus to the manager's claim, the court determined that the record supported a finding that the manager's injuries were the result of a personal assault and battery.

According to the court, the coworker intended to cause harmful or offensive contact to the manager, and the manager had a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. In reaching its conclusion, the court pointed to the coworker's pleading nolo contendere in the criminal case against him regarding the incident.

"While not equivalent to a guilty plea, [the coworker]’s acceptance of a nolo contendere plea, and his conviction, add weight to the conclusion that his 'prank' rose to the level of assault and battery, whatever his subjective intent," the court wrote.

Verdict: The court reversed the Workers' Compensation Commission's judgment, finding that the manager's injuries were not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.

Takeaway

A coworker's intending to hit with a vehicle an employee who is aware of the danger and attempts to avoid it where the employee and coworker are not friends is more likely to count as an assault than an incident of compensable horseplay under Virginia workers' compensation law.

Share This Article: